Other State Kansas: Veteran charged as Felon over state ruling against NFA ruling.

[BillM]

States cannot nullify a federal statute. .

Sanctuary?

 

[308]

Doesn't Idaho's governor promotes building your own suppressor and not applying for a tax stamp as long as you don't take it out of state.

Section 18-3315A – Idaho State Legislature

 

[User 1234]

Even in the insane sanctuary states the state government is not arguing (except for some small portions of California's law that were struck by the court) that the federal government cannot arrest a person for a federal immigration crime and prosecute them with federal laws in federal court. The Kansas law was different, it tried to prohibit the federal government from using federal prosecutors and federal courts to prosecute people under federal laws. This is where Kansas tried to nullify federal law and lost. The sanctuary states say "We are going to prohibit state and local governments from doing anything to help the feds."

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

dudes a dumba$$ for posting it all over facebook. the number one reason i have never had a facebook account: i dont want people in my business

 

[bbbass]

I did not read the links but I know if it was me I would have been far more careful. I have never heard of NFA items that you did not need the stamp for. Ditto to the poster asking about the shop that sold the damn thing. How are they not in the hot seat too?

I'm sure it's because they cooperated with the investigation. I would have thought they'd be the bigger fish to fry tho. IDK

 

[Jonnyuma]

This dude needs a quick law lesson... seems he's getting it now.

Don't post your backwoods NFA items on Zuckbook

Whether you meant it or not, that comes off as elitist AND as sound advice all at the same time.

I have never heard of NFA items that you did not need the stamp fo

This defendant was unfortunately gullible.

For those not following along, there are states that prohibit NFA items on their own accord. A federal tax stamp will allow SBRs, SBSses, suppressors, FAuto, etc according to federal regulations... but some states usurp those rules and forbid all or some of those banned items.

It's a 10A issue that can be thorny to deconstruct.

 

[Lefkoslykos]

I hope that now that Kav is on the bench the court will start taking 2A cases, starting with this and the NY state one...

 

[User 1234]

It is interesting that when Congress was planning the NFA the Supreme Court had been strictly limiting commerce clause authority, so Congress decided to use its taxing powers to try and ban NFA items by making them more expensive than 90% of society could afford. Hence the odd involvement of a tax stamp instead of a license or permit. Then in the next decade the court began greatly relaxing restrictions on Congress' commerce clause powers. This is why a 10th Amendment challenge is weak today. See Tarble's Case.Tarble's Case, 80 U.S. 397 (1871) (States cannot regulate the federal government)

 

[CamoDeafie]

Lets try this again.
According to the decision made against Montana, the Circuit Court determined the following;
1) Fed have sole authority to regulate NFA items, as in States cannot subvert Fed authority related to NFA items, can be interpreted as States cannot subvert, nor regulate firearms that are defined by the Feds (the BATFE definitions of Rifle, Shotgun, Pistol and Firearms); otherwise, a State could in theory then define a Rifle as "any centerfire weapon fired from the shoulder with a stock, no minimum barrel length" (see how California defines "Assault Weapons and prohibited firearms that are far more restrictive than Federal regulations )

2) the impact of manufacturing and transfers/sales of such NFA items in State onto the National market, falls under commerce clause and thus, the Feds have authority to regulate such NFA items in States
3) Montana(and Kansas by association due to same style of law passed) subverted Federal licensing requirements for NFA items, therefore States cannot subvert what is a Federal licensing requirement.


On the other hand.. other cases affirmed the following;
1) States can indeed regulate firearms and accessories by prohibition or requiring additional legal requirements such as registration and the like, as in California, New York, New Jersey, CT, Mass, MD, etc...

2) supposedly upholds 10th A by deciding that Federals are not the sole regulationary authority on firearms in general..

The contradiction I am saying is that either
1) States have no real regulationary authority on NFA items, and by extension, firearms in general due to definitions
Or
2) States do indeed have regulationary authority on firearms in general, and by extension, also on NFA items

However, the courts says States cannot "subvert" Federal authority... meaning States cannot be more flexible on what constitutes a firearm?

 

[User 1234]

States can regulate suppressors, SBRs, SBS, machine guns, DD's, just as the federal government can. States can define them differently if they want to. What states cannot do is veto the federal regulatory scheme or block the federal National Firearms Act and its implementing regulations.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

Section 18-3315A – Idaho State Legislature

Another good reason to live in Idaho

 

[CountryGent]

Another good reason to live in Idaho

The Gem State is looking better all the time.

 

[308]

The Gem State is looking better all the time.

No no no....it is terrible here. The snow is everywhere and you need a UTV just to get around. Stay safe where you are my friend!

 

[CountryGent]

No no no....it is terrible here. The snow is everywhere and you need a UTV just to get around. Stay safe where you are my friend!

No worries; I spent some years in the plains of eastern Oregon, so snow doesn't bother me, and we have a UTV.

BS gun and tax laws, on the hand, do bother me. A lot.

 

[Mr Smith]

Meanwhile Pot is federally illegal and state legal.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

States only get to circumvent federal law on items that the furor sees fit.

DEA harassed and bused plenty of pot shops a couple years ago. dunno if they still do it, but there certainly were a lot of raids a couple years ago.

 

[MilitantBEEMER]

No no no....it is terrible here. The snow is everywhere and you need a UTV just to get around. Stay safe where you are my friend!

I HATE snow but DESPISE tyrants... snow it is

 

[BillM]

No no no....it is terrible here. The snow is everywhere and you need a UTV just to get around. Stay safe where you are my friend!

We tried that here in Oregon. (sub rain for snow). Didn't work. Still got over-run by Californians. Looks like you
are getting quite a colony of them in Boise. Have you considered nuking them from orbit?

 

[308]

We tried that here in Oregon. (sub rain for snow). Didn't work. Still got over-run by Californians. Looks like you
are getting quite a colony of them in Boise. Have you considered nuking them from orbit?

We are working on that

 

[best defense]

Gun Owners of America Funds Challenge to National Firearms Act in U.S. Supreme Court | GOA News - Published Jan 15 2019

https://gunowners.org/images/Kettler-Petition-for-Certiorari.pdf - GOA's petition to the SCOTUS

https://gunowners.org/images//Kettler-Appendix-Final.pdf
From the article:

The Kansas statute declares that any suppressor manufactured, possessed, and used within the borders of Kansas is exempt from federal law. Relying on that Kansas law, in 2014 Jeremy purchased a suppressor from a local military surplus store, but did not register it with ATF pursuant to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Believing he was following the law, Jeremy posted a video about his new suppressor on Facebook, and ATF swooped in. Rather than simply requiring Jeremy to register his suppressor, the feds instead chose felony prosecution — to make an example of Jeremy, and to intimidate all who resist federal power over guns. Jeremy was indicted, and convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer, and now this veteran is a federal felon.

GOA and GOF have stood with Jeremy, both in his appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, and now in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Today GOA and GOF lawyers, representing Jeremy, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to hear Jeremy's case. The petition challenges the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which rejected Jeremy's appeal from the district court.

Jeremy's petition first challenges the legitimacy of the National Firearms Act, which was passed in 1934, and thereafter upheld by the Supreme Court in 1937 under the constitutional power of Congress to "lay and collect taxes." The petition argues that the NFA as it exists today no longer can be justified as a so-called "tax."

Ok to get around federal law with weed but not with a suppressor.

************************************************************
First rule of thumb: Never Ever post photos of your guns or gun related tools on facebook.

 

[raylo]

The Problem is The Authority of The Federal Government is actually limited by the Constitution. They have the Power to Tax and Regulate "Interstate Commerce" , they are Not supposed to regulate "IN State Commerce". They Have used Liberal Judges to skirt this authority using legal mumbo Jumbo by claiming "well, the raw materials Moved interstate " or " the parts Moved interstate or Internationally" and with lawyers writing laws that can be interpreted in Several ways the whole system is flawed and will remain as such until The Supreme Court gets cases and does Rulings.
Classifying a Suppressor as a Firearm has always been a Classic example... it is NOT a firearm , it is an Accessory , and yet it has never been officially challenged in The Courts.

YES!
Although the Constitution was written mostly by attorneys it only took 6 months to receive a law degree then and the Constitution was written for the common man to understand. It was also designed so the common man could defend himself without an attorney. The saying ' a man who represents himself in court has a fool for a client' was created by the first state bars and was the beginning of the kangaroo court system we are under.

Those of us that attended a civics class prior to the federalization of the schools learned that in order to alter an amendment, another amendment is required. An amendment cannot be over ridden by a law or act. And we all know that FFA doesn't stand for Federal Firearms Amendment.
On top of that if the 2A had been about....land....due to unjustified land confiscations and a century later suddenly the supreme court ruled that we define land as 'property' therefore it can be confiscated I don't think that would have flown. Yet somehow using the word 'commerce' is acceptable. And as you stated they can't even follow that when it comes to items related to firearms that remain within the state. The intent of the Bill of Rights was very clear. We know it. They know it. I don't have a pet unicorn. They think they do.